Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Dear Aregakn, I'm trying to push forward to change the name of the article to Khojaly events, providing reliable third-party sources about what happened in Khojaly: , Interview with president Ayaz Mutalibov conducted by the Czech journalist Jana Mazalova in Moscow, published in Nizavisimaya Gazeta, 2 April 1992, Moscow. Need your support and assistance. Thanks. ] (]) 05:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Aregakn, I'm trying to push forward to change the name of the article to Khojaly events, providing reliable third-party sources about what happened in Khojaly: , Interview with president Ayaz Mutalibov conducted by the Czech journalist Jana Mazalova in Moscow, published in Nizavisimaya Gazeta, 2 April 1992, Moscow. Need your support and assistance. Thanks. ] (]) 05:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
== Hi I need your help ==
]
]
Hi, I was looking for some support, I'd like you to come check this out. I want to include a map of the first republic of Armenia (from 1918-1920). From 1918 to 1919, Armenia and Azerbaijan were at war. Borders were not set. Therefore, it's difficult to have a map that's accurate. I made a comprehensive map that shows all the territory that Armenia had stable control over (Yerevan, Kars, Sevan and Gyumri). The rest of the territory that Armenia claimed is separated into two parts. Regions that were mostly under Armenian control, and regions mostly under Azerbaijani control. These are territories that both Armenia and Azerbaijan claimed, and warred over, and the borders often changed. This includes Zangezur, Nakhichevan, Karabakh. My map is sourced by a non-Armenian source, and it even uses contemporary maps of the time to prove it. This site perfectly explains the situation of the time (non-Armenian source): http://conflicts.rem33.com/images/Armenia/disp.htm
A user named Neftchi continuously removes my map using the usual "Nakhchivan, Zangezur and Karabakh have always been Azerbaijani" rhetoric. But I have material to prove him wrong, therefore, I started a discussion on the article to argue about it. I presented all of my arguments, and he hasn't written a word to discuss with me. Instead, he just started an edit war with me, and when he realized I'm not giving up without an argument, he decided to put a map of Azerbaijan that includes ALL territories Azerbaijan claimed at the Paris Peace conference. That map is extremely inaccurate, as it completely ignores the territories Armenian militia controlled. Borders weren't recognized at the time, only the governments were, because Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were all at war. Only proposals were made, and they were still being discussed when the Soviet Union conquered the Caucasus, and set the borders themselves. So I removed his map using the argument that it is biased, and that it ignores the Armenian side.
Please compare: I could have done like him and posted a map that includes all territories Armenia claimed, but that would have been biased. Instead, I posted a map that shows what each side controlled. At least my map doesn't assume that everything Armenia claimed actually belonged to Armenia.
My map: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:D_R_Armenia.png
His map: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic_1918_20.png
Tell me which one is more objective? And he says my map is not sourced. He clearly hasn't read the "Source" of my map. Plus he doesn't even take the time to discuss, he just imposes his views without a single word of argument. Something must be done here. I don't mind making an objective map of Azerbaijan as well. But it would be good if it wasn't ignorant people with a political agenda, but those with an interest in historical facts to make the final decisions on what maps should be used. ] (]) 17:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:46, 21 October 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Aregakn, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Avraam Russo, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
Thanks for your kind words. I wanted to save the page from deletion because this is an important page to preserve. He has pages in so many languages and he should have one in English. Very very soon I'll prepare one in Arabic. And at some later date in Armenian. Now that the page has been saved and notoriety established, it would be nice to add small stuffs to it based on the Russian pages etc. What we need immediately for example is English transliteration of the Russian singles titles. For example, instead of *Обручальная, that we have, we should say *Obrucsalnaja (Обручальная) leaving the Russian in parenthesis and the English transliteration as main. Can you do these for the page for the RUSSIAN singles titles in the English Misplaced Pages? The way it stands now is not correct in English Misplaced Pages for those who cannot read Cyrillic. On a personal level, Intch aghvor anoun men al zader es. Shad keghetsig e "Aregakn" anoune vor yes bidi hentcheyi ipr "Arekagen". Mishd arekagi bes paylun menas. All the best werldwayd (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn, This map was created based on scholarly sources and it shows the location of Iberia within the periphery of the roman empire and is suitable for the section which describes the Iberian history in the Roman context. You are blatantly removing this map under alleged claim of "POV" and not presenting any viable argumentation or reference in order to show how "POV" it is. You replace this map with the outdated one which is un-scholarly but i understand why this map suits your own POV, the border of Armenia are greatly extended into Caucasus. Instead of vandalizing this article and removing valuable maps, i appealed to you previously to cooperate rather than engulf in edit wars. If you dont cease from blatant removal of this map which does not suit your Armenian POV, I will appeal to administrators and report you as vandal and POV pusher. Moreover, this article will be locked until further resolution of the dispute.Iberieli (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
More easy for you and others to understand to make it, I shall do it like this:
Chapter 1
1. You speak of cooperation you proposed.
1)I had not only agreed but also shown in that very discussion that I do contribute in accordance to the rules.
2)But after my request to comment the article itself I did not see you continuing and "cooperating", as you say. But you intentionally stop the "cooperation" (though you are there) so making technically impossible any discussions.
2.I'd suggest you first to (at least) read the rules you are suggesting to have been violated by me (vandalize) befor you openly accuse me. Otherwise you are missleading the editors with your attacks.
3. Your accusations of me having a POV are non-reasonable due to:
1) I did not express an opinion of my own
2) I do always bring reliable sources as references
The issue of the map change.
Answers to your arguments and/or justification of mine
1. (I shall call it "the 1st map"/"the old map") is licensed as "Own work" by the editor.
1)This makes it be a POV and/or a personal research of the editor
2)The publications of personal researches are not allowed by the rules
2. In this regard, the claim that it is made based on scholarly resources is:
1)Your personal point of view
2)does not justify using this map
3. "Removal of the map" phrase is by me considered an intent to suit the circumstances to your own benefit, as it was not removed but changed.
4. The justification of the change was mentioned while the action (and, as you can see, is justified in more details above). The sentence, that the map is "An editor's personal work" was also mentioned hence your other claim of me "not presenting any viable argumentation" is baseless.
5. The claim of me presenting an "outdated" HISTORICAL map (I shall call it "the 2nd map"/"the new map"), forgive me for expressing my opinion, seems quite ridiculous. I don't even think it needs commenting.
6. The claim of the map I proposed being un-academic is pure manipulation. It can be found for educational purposes in different universities and libraries and used in the academic processes. I've updated some information in it's summery so you can see it as an example.
In addition to above mentioned I will add MORE reasons of why to remove it and mention why to have my change
1. The 1st map is not suitable for this section as the section is named "The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis". In the map you prefer:
1) It is clearly obvious there is no Colchis
2) The map has not mapping, no bordering of either Iberia or Colchis
3) The absence of the above mentioned not only doesn't show that it wasn't made to enlighten anything connected with those kingdoms, but also has an approximate "whereabouts" of the Caucasian Kingdom of Iberia.
2. The map I presented is not only academic and published, but also spots the Iberian Kingdom AND the Kingdom of Colchis AND their borders.
3. The 1st map is claimed by the editor to be “The maximum extent of the Roman Empire” and is in his own understanding. The 2nd map is named the same way “The Roman Empire at it's greatest extent" and is a published map in a historical atlas.
4. And in addition the 2nd map is easily suitable under the featured image policy of Misplaced Pages.
My conclusion
1. Your claim of suitability of the old map isn’t justified
2. Your claim of the new being not academic is baseless
3. Your claim of it being my POV is baseless
4. Your claim of vandalism is even more
5. You fail to see the old map’s contradiction to Wiki rules
6. You fail to see the advantages of the new map
7. You fail to understand the justifications of edits on time
8. You fail to understand what a POV is
9. You fail to understand what a reliable source is
10. You fail to cooperate with other editors not having your view
11. You baselessly attack other editors and threaten them
12. You are welcome to apply to Admins for a resolution; it will be my pleasure to have the truth prevailing by any means.
13. If you have any comments or arguments of what I said, please use the points I mentioned in here
I hope you will also read it in the article's discussion and get back to my page to either make a comment or ask for an excuse for false accusations! Aregakn (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Iberieli, please stop removing the modern map. The new map is far superior in legibility and accuracy. You are correct that it is currently unsourced, but I have asked the map's creator to list the sources used in making the map. Once that rather simple task is done your concerns about it being original research will have been addressed. - SimonP (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Whether you or i agree to the "map" being good or bad in general has nothing to do with it contradicting with several Wiki policies I listed.
In addition, most importantly for us making an opinion, it is not made as a map or in accordance to any topographycal rules, and cannot even be called a map. It is a picture showing approximate locations and could only be used to show how many and what kind of provinces the empire had.
Pls get serious with understanding some professional aspects of the contributions we make and let us keep the feelings we have aside.
Pls do NOT repeat your ridiculous sentences and baseless accusations. You have been told to either comment properly on the issue of the map in History of Georgia (country) opened by your self with arguments and referrals to my argumentation or stop your baseless claims and aspersions. Enough is enough of your threats and attacks on editors; I shall apply for blocking you if you continue your unwise actions. You are the on to vandalize articles with edit prevention and pushing own work claiming it is scientific. This isn't the first I am asking you to stop your threats and attacks, and this shall be the LAST TIME I am warning YOU!Aregakn (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again! I made a not there already. Didn't manage to reach the blocking as was in the process of 3rd oppinion noting. Good work and thanks! Aregakn (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
3rd Opinion
Hi Aregakn
I don't want to derail our other conversation, so I'm replying to your last post here. Keep in mind, as I mentioned before, that I'm nobody in particular and nothing that I say is necessarily binding. I'm just trying to offer a third opinion in a dispute.
So, with that out of the way, you said; "I want you to tell me if you are saying, that if, for instance, I make a historical map on my own, claiming it's referenced, and put it in an article of history somewhere you'll see it right and if yes, what are the bases?"
I guess my view is that it's necessary in wiki for people to be able to create images without causing any problem with "The Rules". Generally speaking, it's difficult to get good images without breaching copyright. In the case of historical maps generally (I'm not talking about our specific case here), there is always ongoing research and the scholarly maps that are available may be quite old. They are also sometimes hard to understand for a modern reader. So, for those reasons, I would generally be inclined to agree that a created map, with proper referencing, is acceptable.
Having said that, each case has to be considered on its merits. I don't think a created map should be dismissed out of hand, but I think that if there are two maps of equal merit, one published and the other created for wikipedia, then the published map should be preferred.
You also made some comments on the created map as not showing the boundaries of the kingdom. I do think that it's an important factor, but I'm still making up my mind on the matter of the two maps. As I've said over there, I'll await any response from Iberieli (or whoever else might be interested) before replying. I think courtesy demands that I wait at least 48 hours from my last post. After that, I'll give my opinion in a bit more detail.
Finally, I just wanted to say thank you for the civil and polite (and helpful!) way you've conducted yourself during our discussions. I can see that this means a lot to you and I'm pleased that you are making the effort to discuss the matter rationally. Cheers! Thepm (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! I'll be so much grateful!! You can't even imagine :) .
1) My first question will be about the photos from internet. If I found a photograph on the net on a website of a news agency, a photo that is obviously published and put in public domain (if i understand the term correct) can it be used in Misplaced Pages and if yes, which copyright license should be used for it?
2) If a photo is made by a friend (not me) but is passed to me for the purpose of publishing it in wiki, which license should be used?
3) If a photo is made by a personally-unknown person but is published in his/her blog, online diary and sources like that, are these photos not in public domain and can they be used in Wiki. If yes, which copyright should be used for them.
4) One more specific question. If a person made a photo and passed it personally to a news agency for it to be published and so it was, can this picture be used and which license suits the case?
1) almost certainly no. For WP purposes, unless the author has specifically released it under a compatible licence (see below!) it cannot be used, unless as fair use (again, see below!)
2)If your friend wants to retain rights to it, you'll have to provide email proof that it is theirs and they give permission. If they release it to you, you can use it without problem.
3)No. You will need their permission to use it, try emailing them, but make sure they own the image
4)No. That will be copyright of the news agency or the photogpraher's employer
You can use a copyright image under fair use in certain circumstances- ie where an image is required but a free one cannot be found. You'd need to read WP:NFC for details on that. Do let me know if you have more questions though! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot mate! Though the rearons are not fully understandable but thabks. So you mean a non-emloyee of a news agency publishing in it his/her made photo doesnt give me a chance to use it either. OK. And what about the e-mail you were telling about? who, where and how should it be presented? Aregakn (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. The reasons aren't clear to me either, but policy is policy. Copyright law is fiddly (I should know, I'm a law student!) but the aim, at the end of the day, is to have free content wherever possible so people can reuse it, like they can with the text. If you have an image that isn't yours, but the copyright holder wants attribution, get them to email it to photosubmissionwikimedia.org with the details listed here. Alternatively, they can upload it here or to commons: themselves or to Flickr, which allows its users to choose a licence (they can require attribution but it must be available to use commercially). Hope that helps! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fiddly to say the least! Hopefully it's a bit clearer now, but feel free to drop me a line any time you have a question- if I can't answer it, I should be able to find someone who can! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello friend! Here I have more questions about images :). Can you help me understand if I can make changes on an image in public domain because of being too old) and what attributions should be to it, if there should? Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: An IP user possible vandalism
Re your message: The vandalism occurred over a day ago and the IP has not edited since that time, so there's no need for any further action. Thanks for looking out for my user page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Requests for mediation/Historical map of the Roman Empire in the article "History of Georgia (country)"
Of course his. Has nothing to do with what you did and/or wrote. Sorry for the missunderstanding. I thought of the possibility of it, but thought would be clear from the context. I shall change it myself. Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You have been asking me why I didn't mention Kingdom of Urartu issue. The reason is I didn't understand your point. Explain your point or provide a link or do whatever you can do so that I can see your point in there.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was clear. The Kingdom of Urartu/Ararat is called by that name presently because of Assyrians calling it so. The people of Urartu named themselves Biaynili. Does your "proposed logic" mean, that the names of Urartu or Ararat should not be used in articles as they called themselves different? This is it. Aregakn (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Section heading cases at WP
Hello Aregakn. This is in regards to you undoing my edits of Armenian Genocide on 22/23 April, 2010, with your edit summary "In English language all words in headings are written with upper cases...". Go to most any page in Misplaced Pages, and you will note that almost all section and sub-section headings are in lower case, except for the 1st letter, proper names, titles, etc. For that matter, the article in question, as it stands now, has almost all heading words in lower case (for example at the bottom of the page, take a look at the headings, Further reading, Online resources, External links, Interactive media, etc, etc). The few words I did not change in this article's headings were ones I was not sure whether or not they were parts of titles. Leon7 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If all (the majority of) the headings are wrong it doesn't mean others should be changed to that. Then editors have to work on correcting the wrong ones. There are rules in English language, aren't there? If I know them bad, I'd like others to correct me in this or other regards. Aregakn (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but what you are doing is clearly against Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. If you can convince editors to change that page, then I would go along with you. But until then, I'm going to work toward consistency. Leon7 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn can't really be accused of canvassing as he isn't really violating the criteria outlined here except perhaps for the choice of his audience. Considering that Hittit recently sent multiple notices in Turkish (violating the secrecy clause) with an obviously biased message in a rather disruptive way this accusation sounds rather hypocritical. Kostja (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Addressing your, Hittit, accusation:
My notes are made as: limited postings, neutral (never called on any action or specific voting), nonpartisan (in limited numbers informing different users of different involved sides previously participating in similar) and open as I hid not the messages.
Hi Aregakn. I can see you are a serious editor, so let me explain my removal of the reference top the God Pan in detail.
Clearly the Greek word Pan can mean the god Pan. Or it can mean the prefix pan, meaning "all."
These are two very distinct and different meanings.
So the question is which meaning is relevant to the word pantheism?
Has the god Pan got anything to do with pantheism so as to justify inclusion in the Misplaced Pages article?
Here's the evidence.
CURRENT USAGE
First, note that no dictionary gives "worship of the god Pan" as one of the meanings of the word pantheism.
So the god Pan is irrevelant from that point of view.
ETYMOLOGY
The word pantheist was first used in English in 1705 by John Toland and was a fresh neologism at the time - it was never used in classical times.
Therefore the intent in Toland's mind is the key factor. Toland defined a pantheist a person "who has no other Eternal Being than the Universe."
Clearly it was pan as a prefix meaning "all" that was Toland's intent.
He made no reference to the god Pan either here nor in his later work Pantheisticon.
So from an etymology standpoint the "god Pan" meaning of the pan part of pantheism is irrelevant.
It is quite confusing for readers who may be encountering pantheism for the first time to read that the god Pan has anything whatsoever to do with it.
The reference 3 that you found is just plain misguided. The Rev Bert Gary is a student of biblical matters and is not a scholar of classical Greek or of pantheism. He does not even mention the correct etymology for pantheism. --Naturalistic (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for coming back to it and I shall explain what I wrote and comment what you did.
"Current Usage"
You are wrong to interpret my addition as "the worship of Pan (the god)". There is nothing pointing it out and neither was it written that way. " Sometimes the root "Pan" is also identified with the Greek God Pan, the God of Nature that has the hindquarters, legs and horns of a goat." And also added "In many mythologies the goat or a goat-like-man symbolizes the Nature." As you can see, there is nothing about the worship of the god and there is only emphasis on the God symbolising Nature.
Conclusion: all the references I brought were correct in the context of what I wrote, which is "Sometimes the root "Pan" is also identified with the Greek God Pan".
"Etymology"
The word as it was first used (by whoever, whenever) has not much to do with the perception of it currently or by different groups about which I spoke in my edit. This was not THE chapter, where it speaks of history, and, as you know, that very chapter is comes after in the article.
"etymology" itself makes researches of the origins of a word from the point of view of it's connections to other words or expressions in that or other languages.
Conclusion: history of the term is not what I stated about. Etymology is not the paragraph I edited and it is not only the meaning of the root "pan" that etymology is there to study.
There is no confusion in the sentence I added where it states that the root is sometimes identified with the god Pan that was the god of Nature. I regret, that you had not seen what I wanted to state, but yet I see no arguments that my contribution to the article was anyhow wrong. If you can bring anything up in this regard, I am willing to hear and discuss.
In addition you have once again removed non-vandalism with no clear reason or discussion and asked for no more references if you thought those were wrong. You are not the only editor having a right to edit this article so please be patient and cooperative. Aregakn (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not saying your contribution was wrong in itself and certainly not that it was vandalism - it is perfectly correct as to one of the meanings of Pan. What we disagree about is whether this other meaning of Pan belongs in the article about Pantheism, and moreover right up at the top in very first sentence of the intro which is all that some people read. What I am suggesting is that this inclusion will mislead many readers about what Pantheism means.
I agree that the first use of a word is not always relevant to the current usage - however in this case it is very relevant for two reasons. The first is that the original meaning of the word by Toland is still the current meaning. And the god Pan has nothing to do with that. The second is that Toland invented the word and so he is the only source of the etymology. Therefore what he meant by the pan prefix is very relevant. And the god Pan had nothing to do with that, either.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you in all but the etymology of the word. As I said, etymology is not only what the roots mean but also the relevance to other words and expressions.
But in either case I also agree with your will to have not mentioned Pan the God in the first part for the article for the "superficial readers" not to possibly get mixed in the meaning. Then let us think where that mentioning is suitable because it isn't done anywhere in the article. I am convinced, that the relation with other religions has nothing to do there, so it cannot be in that part. What do you think of it? Aregakn (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Other AE question
Hello Stifle. Thank you for your involvment because the discussion was getting out of the limits and was not about the very point of the argument. Don't you think that it worths to inform user:Grandmaster as well of the outcome and the WP:OUCH (I read your message at User_talk:DGG)? Regards, Aregakn (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I do agree, that any of the involved (or not) one way or an other are capable of reading the outcome. I just refered to the message at the above mentioned talk-page... Just in case, you know. Thanks for your answer. Aregakn (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hittit case
Hi Aregakn!
These are my last minutes on wp before some holidays, so I would suggest you to add your points to my request.
Advise:
keep it short - admin are bored by long statements;
don't go too deeply into substance (in this regard, manipulation of sources is a good catch, but you should insist on the behaviour, not on sources); admins have no editorial function.
For the next year, you are restricted from referring to others' edits as vandalism (including "possible vandalism", "potential vandalism", etc.), including but not limited to in edit summaries and talk page posts, except where reverting the edit would qualify for exemption from the three-revert rule.
Stifle, I do still see you as neutral and constructive so I will admit the sanctions if I cannot convince you on your talk page. Or maybe you can convince me in the need of it :).
I thought I refered to the term "vandalism" the least I could (especially in comparison with many such claims I encountered during my relatively short contribution to Wiki) as I see not many actions can refer to it (also according to Wiki). Can you please point the bases and why it is required? Thank you. Aregakn (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The most recent was item #7 in your complaint about Hittit. The sanction is merely to encourage you not to throw around the term loosely. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned a possible vandalism, as I saw some signes of "Sneaky vandalism" - hiding vandalism, where in general four identical edits Hittit made on the same subject:
only once () he deleted that picture of NewYork Times and gave no reasoning in the summery (at least). Neither was it ever discussed on the talk page. Could one not have doubted it was possibility a Sneaky Vandalism? Aregakn (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I could agree with "sneaky", but not with "vandalism" — the edits might not be agreed, but are not completely inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that the deletion of a factual cover of NY Times paper was made in good faith? Or that it was "appropriate". Aregakn (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait, I am speaking of the concrete action that Hittit made that I mentioned as "possible vandalism". So if it is about what I called "possible vandalism", and if you don't see it was not in good faith, let us discuss that edit. And then that I worth being sanctioned for this. Or maybe you do think that it could be seen as an act done not in good faith and inappropriate and we should stop the discussion? Aregakn (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a merit to the argument. But still, it's important to avoid the "v-word". How about as a matter of good faith, I will reduce the sanction from one year to one month? Stifle (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is why I do try to avoid a direct accusation in vandalism and in that comment I wanted to bring it to the attention, so the closing Admin would consider and value it him/herself. This was my only intetion. Though the idea of being sanctioned for the above mentioned is hard for me to ccept, I shall leave the decision to you.
Very well. I hereby modify the above sanction to expire in one month, rather than one year. You retain the right of further appeal to WP:AE and to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a man of my word. I shall do as I said even if I wouldn't like the results to be so. Till the next time Aregakn (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. I was trying to warn you you were a bit in a hurry to make a separate article. Have you not checked your mail? I was trying to show you the propper way to do it on the Arm Genocide discussion. Now some editors will want to make wars again. I'll make a "resumè" and include it to the Genocide article. Aregakn (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Aregakn. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Aregakn. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Aregakn. I noticed and appreciate your good-faith effort to improve the Georgian alphabet page. The change you made, however, from "has been" to a form using "was" indicates the opposite of your stated intent, so I have reverted it. "Was believed" indicates that it is no longer believed. "Has been believed" does not carry the same meaning and includes the belief in present time. Just wanted to explain the reversion. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what rejection you're referring to. You changed "has been believed" to "was asserted." Has been and were convey grammatically different information. To illustrate, add "for ten years" to the end: "It has been believed for ten years" is not the same as "It was believed for ten years" because the former indicates a presently continuing belief whereas the latter indicates a blief that might no longer be held.
Because some scholars (i.e., those referenced in the paragraph in question) currently believe both that Mesrop Mashtots was the creator while others (i.e., those referenced in the following paragraph) currently believe in an older origin, the use of was is at best inaccurate and at worst inconsistent with the information in the article.
I do appreciate your good-fait efforts in the article, but it seems to me, that you have not only reverted the "was" to "have been" but also the wors "asserted". Would be relevant if you changed only the tense you claim expresses a wrong idea. This indicates the opposite of the stated intent. Especially when you have one edit earlier made the same change in the opposite manner . "believed" was changed to "have asserted" by a summary "believed" doesn't reflect that some obviously still do; English revision". words asserted and believe are not the same so first of all your edit was not concerning the English language (only), and secondly, if so, it could have been a change to "believe" and not "...have asserted".
So tell me, reverting my change from "was asserted" back to "has been believed" and keeping your implication that the Georgian scholars "have asserted", what change does it make to the context?
And please tell me why "was asserted" wasn't changed to "has been asserted", if it was the problem of the tense in English language.
Your change was inaccurate because of the grammar you used. That's all I said. I find your taking issue with the wording arbitrary. Scholars rarely assert what they disbelieve. Please word it as you like, but please make sure the statement is grammatically correct.JFHJr (㊟) 04:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You might also note the version before previous edit you mention was inaccurate for the same reason: "believed" ≠ "have believed." Likewise "asserted" ≠ "have asserted." The inaccuracy wasn't in the term used, and my use of "asserted" was arbitrary. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your point of view, but you contradict with yourself. If scholars rarely assert something, as you say, then your change to the Georgian scholars asserting is in contradiction.
I would offer a compromise. Maybe I do not see many differences between "have believed" and "believed" because it's just a matter of tense and not the context and the idea, but I surely see in "believed" and "asserted". Let us keep the tense as you offer is correct and put similar wording in both those parts, whichever you would offer. Deal?Aregakn (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
By ArmenianPhD
Hi. Well I would like to contribute as much as I can (and I can contribue a lot). There are many things that weren't covered in Armenian Genocide page that's why I contracted you in regards of those extra articles.
Also, let me thank you for your contributions to that page. It is great —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianPhD (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. By the way, you can sign your edits on the talk-pages by just putting ~ ~ ~ ~ (without spaces in between. Thank you too for contributions. Common work is good in Misplaced Pages. Have you read how to edit and on what bases? Aregakn (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Could u help?
Hey there.
Thank u for all ur contributions! U r good in it and u always bring proper argumentations ad references.
Could u help me with Yerevan State University? If u look at it, it has plenty of issues. It's just awful how it's written.
Hello friend! Here I have more questions about images :). Can you help me understand if I can make changes on an image in public domain because of being too old) and what attributions should be to it, if there should? Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In general terms if it's public domain by default because of its age (which for the US, where WP's servers are, is 70 years after the author died) that means it's entirely free of copyright- you can use it commercially, make derivatives etc. If the image is on Commons, there's a tool there to help you upload a derivative of an existing image. Does that answer your question? If not, then a link to a specific file and what exactly you want to do with it would be helpful if possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You have entirely answered my question :). One more connected to it. If it is a historical map but difficult to read, can I just clear things up in it, and then, because it has to be referenced, mention the reference as that published map? WIll it be in accordance to all the rules? Here is the map . Aregakn (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm very sure, that a historical map cannot be created just by 1 person for an Encyclopedic use and so it has to be in accordance to some sources. As I don't have certain programms, researches and mechanisms, I can just use this map in public domain, make it simple and reference to the source of the map, which will make it referenced to an academic, rather than self-made out in the air. Right? At any case, in Wiki rules Misplaced Pages:OI#Original_images it is said, that created images that are referenced only can be used. Otherwise it is an WP:OR. Still there is no way one can reference a histrical map, if not to a published. Otherwise, how can one create one out of texts? Aregakn (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay- I got busy with boring admin stuff! If the image was published in a reliable source, then a derivative of it should be acceptable, but that's not really my area of expertise. Someone at WP:RS/N might be of more help (I know a lot, but I don't know everything!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the Turkey article, yet it is almost as important as mentioning it in the Armenia article... Good work! --Davo88 (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
I have just read your comment. Pelin Batu denies the genocide, unfortunately. She got a death thread in Haberturk's programme because she pointed that both sides suffered. To believe or not, in the last week's programme she got another message which was an open invitation for "sex". There are some vandals in Turkey who use the Internet for bad purposes. Kavas (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Kavas, dear, even if she didn't pronounce it, the problem is not that. The problem is that she received harassment and threats because of whatever she said, and we had editors, that claimed it's sooo damn free and safe to discuss this issue in Turkey. Imagine if she pronounced that word, what would happen? Though I'd love to meet her in person to know myself what she really thinks, you know... Regards, Aregakn (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
See here. "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Misplaced Pages; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work." They're also a quality assessment tool, and used by Misplaced Pages to work out what to put in its flatform distributions.
User Nakh keeps removing Armenian related info/templates etc etc. The template in Nairi is used for "navigating" in the Template:History of Armenia template as properly shown in the template with these pages for "navigation" in the appropriate pages related to the template. Please help out in contacting admins also if this vandalism by Nakh continues. Which I think he is going to continue removing, next will be 3RR for him he reverts again of Armenian related pages. Forsts23 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey! The problem is, that the template is to navigate, yes. But that sort of template implies the idea that the article about Nairi is mainly the part of Armenian history. The thing is, that the article itself does not contain much information about the relation to Armenia. We have to first find info in RSs for it and edit, thenafter bring the issue of the template. I'm looking forward to see my historian freinds to help me with the RSs. OK? Aregakn (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, same goes with Urartu page, and other related pages. You can help out with these sources I have:
freerepublic .com/focus/f-chat/2200695/posts and http://www.allnewsweb.com "The Mitanni Kingdom was a powerful force around 1500 BC to 1300 BC and are regarded by many historians as the ancestors of the modern day Armenians."
ezinearticles .com/?Tracing-the-Origin-of-Ancient-Sumerians&id=311587 "These were prehistoric Aryan tribes of an Armenian origin – followers of the God Ara."
Also, check the Talk:Mitanni , at the bottom of the talk page, another user provided yet another ref/source of scholars like Henry Hall, another Egypotlogist that Mitanni names are "Armeno-Aryan" <--subgroup of ancestors to both Indo-Iranians and Armenians. Forsts23 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Friend, I know the relation between the Armenian history and Nairi and that those are directly connected. And thank you for the sources. It is a pity I am a little busy with some disputes presently connected to Karabakh Khanate, Khojaly Massacre:Khojalu Massacre etc. I promise to start the Nairi/Urartu/Hitti case when those are done. But I am certain, that the information and history of Nairi have to be edit and the relation drawn as in the sources. If it was possible to find enough material, then the tag will not be countered. I'd really suggest to concentrate on the content of the Article for now until I join you in it. Aregakn (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand, those topics you are working on are very important, (of course linked with our history also to correct). Great work on some of the pages you corrected. Forsts23 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is part of our world history, yes. I just hate when some start pretending everybody is a fool and doesn't know the history, so they can falsify it in ENCYCLOPEDIAS for their own POLITICAL goals. Aregakn (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Re:A request to check (back)
Hello, Aregakn. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Who included the comment about Selim being a racist Kurd hater? were are the sources to back this nonsense up, which poem is this in I wonder.
Actually Selim didn't like Kurds at all and he smashed some of their tribes on his way to Egypt. Here is a poem by Yavuz Sultan Selim about Kurds (If you know Turkish, you will understand); in 1514
Kürde fırsat verme ya Rabb, dehre sultan olmasın.
Ayağın sıksın çarık, asla iflah olmasın
Vur sopayı al ekmeği, karnı bile doymasın
Ol çeşmeden gavur içsin, Kürde nasip olmasın
O God don't give opportunity to a Kurd, that he will( should) never be souverain for the eternity
Hold him tight sabot (of rigid lether) in his foots, that he will (should) never be in Salvation.
Strike (hit) with staff (crook), take the braed; that even his stomach should not eat one's fill
That pagan (heathen) drink in the holy fountain, that is not destinated for a Kurd
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Appeal of sanction against Aregakn and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I don't know if you were keeping track, but the sanction expires at 08:57 today. May I suggest that your appeal will therefore be moot by the time ArbCom gets to it, and that you consider withdrawing it? Stifle (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, in so far as any sanction I have placed against you is still active, I hereby lift it. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please explain what a lift of sanction means, because I see the log still in place. No, I have not been keeping track. The reason I was and am going until the end is that I wish to keep my records clean as I am considering long-term contribution to Misplaced Pages. My appeal for this sanction isn't for the very limitations itself, because I have been careful with the use of that term "vandalism" anyway, but for being sanctioned in general as I really see no guilt. My record and good standing in the community is what is important to me. Aregakn (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well, because of changing the places of the Russian Federation and China and me not noticing it in the diffs I was wrong. Sorry for that! But still the matter of the Russian Federation should be presented. You calculated the Turkic population so I would like to see which nationalities you count to be Turkic from the list in the source before I'd see to the total number. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ooo.... and how did the Turkic speaking caucassian nations become ethnicly Turkic??? I see these articles all need a clean-up! Thanks for bringing it up. Do you have any sources to refr to or wikipedia is the only one, that I saw no references in? Aregakn (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That ethnolinguistic classification seems perfectly fine to me. What are you talking about? Anyway, I consider the case resolved and hope there won't any further reverts. --Mttll (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
For many times and once again I am asking you for listing which nations you count turkic from that list and on the bases of which Reliable sources. Until you explain the change you cannot consider it resolved. Aregakn (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a matter of common knowledge, so the burden of proof is on you. I hope you aren't interested in creating problems for no real reason. --Mttll (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess you should not put any burden on anybody else and read Misplaced Pages. I am not supposed to know who is turkic and who is not. But you are supposed to know if you edit that and to prove you are right. So read a bit then come and demand knowledge from me. Aregakn (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I don't mean to be aggressive. I'm sorry if you feel that way.
The thing is, I'm not even making an assertion here. I'm just transfering an established information from one part of Misplaced Pages to another. Misplaced Pages has two imperfect but extensive articles on Turkic peoples and Turkic languages and all their subgroups. There are 22 groups in that page I linked you to and they all have articles of their own. And here's a summary that lists those 22 groups among others: 1. I hope we don't have a problem now. --Mttll (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but Turkic languages and Turkic peoples have nothing to do with each other. If I speak Indo-European language I am not count to be, let's say, ethnically Indo-European. If you copy unreferenced (in a proper way) data from one part of WP to another, then it should be either checked or you should not revert it to your edit, if it's requested to be proven. This is the way WP works, not in the way of copy-paste.
And I would like to note, that if you decide that a compromise is reached, it doesn't mean it is in the reality. Making such an edit summary means making a misleading edit summary. Aregakn (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's do this; I have opened a discussion on the talk-page of Turkic peoples. let us take the discussion there. I need to see reliable sources telling "this nationality is ethnically from Turkic" and not by language but ethnicity. Aregakn (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Though you continue to comment on editors and base those on the edits of the very first days of my contribution to WP (clear WP:BITE), I want to answer them by noting, that, not knowing about the plagiarism rules (and the 99% of the rules those days), most of the content of the article you mention was copied from different Russian websites. Forgive me, but your labeling of my edits as nonsense and also your manner of judging them, based on the above, as inadequate to en4 are narrow-minded in this very case.
On the other hand, I could comment your English knowledge judging your sentence above, but I consider it inadequate. Aregakn (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Any unauthorized changes to another editor's page can be construed as vandalism. If you wish to do something productive(concerning someone's English usage), I would suggest you check out this editor's creations. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA-EN :
Greetings!
due to recent anouncements by the Iranian Vice President I have added some links to the en:Armenian Genocide recognition article, but unfortunately was unable to edit the SVG map. Can you please do that? Thank you. Aregakn (d) 28 août 2010 à 22:29 (CEST)
Dear Aregakn, I'm trying to push forward to change the name of the article to Khojaly events, providing reliable third-party sources about what happened in Khojaly: , Interview with president Ayaz Mutalibov conducted by the Czech journalist Jana Mazalova in Moscow, published in Nizavisimaya Gazeta, 2 April 1992, Moscow. Need your support and assistance. Thanks. Kevorkmail (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking for some support, I'd like you to come check this out. I want to include a map of the first republic of Armenia (from 1918-1920). From 1918 to 1919, Armenia and Azerbaijan were at war. Borders were not set. Therefore, it's difficult to have a map that's accurate. I made a comprehensive map that shows all the territory that Armenia had stable control over (Yerevan, Kars, Sevan and Gyumri). The rest of the territory that Armenia claimed is separated into two parts. Regions that were mostly under Armenian control, and regions mostly under Azerbaijani control. These are territories that both Armenia and Azerbaijan claimed, and warred over, and the borders often changed. This includes Zangezur, Nakhichevan, Karabakh. My map is sourced by a non-Armenian source, and it even uses contemporary maps of the time to prove it. This site perfectly explains the situation of the time (non-Armenian source): http://conflicts.rem33.com/images/Armenia/disp.htm
A user named Neftchi continuously removes my map using the usual "Nakhchivan, Zangezur and Karabakh have always been Azerbaijani" rhetoric. But I have material to prove him wrong, therefore, I started a discussion on the article to argue about it. I presented all of my arguments, and he hasn't written a word to discuss with me. Instead, he just started an edit war with me, and when he realized I'm not giving up without an argument, he decided to put a map of Azerbaijan that includes ALL territories Azerbaijan claimed at the Paris Peace conference. That map is extremely inaccurate, as it completely ignores the territories Armenian militia controlled. Borders weren't recognized at the time, only the governments were, because Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were all at war. Only proposals were made, and they were still being discussed when the Soviet Union conquered the Caucasus, and set the borders themselves. So I removed his map using the argument that it is biased, and that it ignores the Armenian side.
Tell me which one is more objective? And he says my map is not sourced. He clearly hasn't read the "Source" of my map. Plus he doesn't even take the time to discuss, he just imposes his views without a single word of argument. Something must be done here. I don't mind making an objective map of Azerbaijan as well. But it would be good if it wasn't ignorant people with a political agenda, but those with an interest in historical facts to make the final decisions on what maps should be used. Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at History of Georgia (country), you will be blocked from editing. Iberieli (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. 
with the details listed here. Alternatively, they can upload it here or to commons: themselves or to Flickr, which allows its users to choose a licence (they can require attribution but it must be available to use commercially). Hope that helps! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
was made in good faith? Or that it was "appropriate". Aregakn (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. Varmin (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
